Dear @wrm57 : " If distortion be the food of vinyl, play on! "
Exactly and nothing wrong with that. It's for almost all our audio life what we are acustomen to enjoy.
My point is only, try not add more distortions that the ones you can't avoid in the analog medium.
R. |
@lewm I read what you posted and does not exist any " mantra ". You can run-out/away of the facts and if you don't want to accept the fact that you like added high distortions with that tonearm is up to you and your privilege. No mantra here but just reality and nothing wrong with that.
Enough. R.
|
Dear @lewm : No, I'm not angry and never with you. Look, the " I like " needs no explanation that can makes common sense to other audiophiles and maybe that's why you have not " none " to share.
Now, all the VIV owners are enjoying and " discovering " a new distortion added stage and that's all.
J.Ellison is rigth we analog lovers like distortions, nothing wrong with that.
What I don't like is than been aware that something is adding high distortions buy and listen to that audio item. I don't like added distortions My target is to stay nearer to the recording.
R. |
@lewm : " is to seek an explanation for observations that run contrary to one’s cherished beliefs, "
ill today you don't give any explanations only: bla, bla, bla,. Seriously where are those explanations that you touted?.
R. |
Dear @lewm : First I don't need another tonearm, second I don't need it to own the VIV to have some kind of explanation(s). Your " I like it " along all the other owners is not really an issue but your observations as the other owners about just told me ( common sense ) that levels over 10% of THD in a room system has not really a discernible " problem ". As a fact speakers several times goes higher than 10% and in the vintage years tube electronics were just " there " and everybody happy.
All those just told me too that we are not measuring the rigth paRAMETERS FOR THE TONEARM HIGH CARTRIDGE ERROR DISTORTION LEVELS.
We are accustomed for the inherent way high " natural " tracking distortion that we can't avoid and we " like it " so another kind of tracking distortion is welcomed for you and the other owners and I'm still posting here looking for your explanations because was you who posted here about. @mijostyn , no matters what the tonearm design ( no matters which kind of design. ) that tonearm can't makes to avoid the inherent tracking distortion in the analog playback media. Not only you but I'm sure no one really can tell in very precise way a tonearm with 0° tracking error against other tonearm with 1.3° tracking error. NO ONE ( everything the same ).
R. |
Dear @lewm : Seems to me that you already gave up looking that a wrong design sounds good other that the " normal ": I like it. Nothing wrong with that.
In other thread ( Dava cartridge ) you posted something about other internet forym that the arguments there always is " I like it ":
""I wouldn't take WBF too seriously, except to say that some of those guys actually do own the megabuck gear that they discuss........ But beware of subconscious bias, which is inevitable and only human. "
Well, now you will be welcomed down there. Just kidding.
R. |
well the RS Labs is an almost vintage tonearm against the Yamaha and in those all years audiophiles can change its mind due that were learning in several audio issues almost every day.
@mijostyn , the whole fun behind vinyl is just that a lot of fun, several and different issues/alternatives/ste up parameters/ sevral different cartridges/ the preserve cleaning proccess. It's almost a " religion " all those characteristics and several more, always trying to up-grade/up-date here and there to improve quality reproduction and the other side as you mentioned is that several analog lovers as we are own thousands of LP's.
R. |
Btw, I know for sure that you as @mijostyn , me and some other gentlemans just do not like to add distortions in any way and nowhere our room/systems.
I posted several times and I 'm sure that at least one time you read what I posted:
" the name of the MUSIC/sound is to put at minimum any kind of distortons developed by our room/system: this is my main target that even what I posted several times too: nearer to the recording target.
R. |
@lewm and dear friends: Maybe many VIV owners not even who is J.Ellison and they need to find out that information.
Now, . Ellison posted in your link about the underhung Yamaha yonearm in the thread you started there, so it's an answer that he gave to you:
" The Yamaha straight arm is absurd. "
He posted too something that I posted several time about my personal targets:
" I don't really care what it sounds like. I care only how it measures.
His last statement/sentence is my target but all what he said is just a true fact for people as mijos or me.
An his last post in that thread in different words is something I already posted here and from year now in several threads:
" I firmly believe that the people who prefer vinyl also prefer distortion.
Btw, that's why we " say " ( not me ) that vinyl has superiority to digital when it's theother way around. No pun intented.
lew, I really appreciated your link because that gentleman confirmed several of my posted believes in this forum.
R.
|
@lewm, well both of us are in some way " closed mine " because if I need to listen VIV youuuuu need to develop a way better tests proccess. When do you start to do it?
I'm not willing to buy a VIV first because I don't need a tonear my self design is very good but I woned over 20 tonearm and still own a good number and second because my common sense says so and my curiosity level is way lower that yours mine is ZERO.
R. |
@lewm : It's way " pity " ( for say the least ) that all the other owners that already posted in this thread just let you ALONE in the discussion. My take for that is that all them do not care if the design is totally wrong but that they like it as you but exist a " but ": the difference between you and all them is that you are the only that like it but even that you are looking why a wrong design like it. Yoi are chasing " explanations " as the ones you posted and that rpoves nothing in favor of what you are looking for.
Again, instead to " lost " some timie posting here use that time to develop a sure/true test overall proccess as I did it 20+ years ago
Lew, how can you explain it that two audiophiles as José and I could designed the Essential 3150 unit is high quality reproduction levels with out resources as true audio electronics manufacturers. Because José and I are only two people appasinated with MUSIC and MUSIC reproduction at home and not in the audio market, this was at " random "? Yes, technically José is very good but it's not enough to make the design because that design must be voiced in high resolution rooms/systems and that voicing mainly belongs to me. The developed tests proccess permited us to choose between diferent manufacturer transistor models/resistors/capacitors/ and the like ( obviously that were several kind of measurements on all those ) and after test the " rigth " parts the need it to beeen assembled on the boards and after that to make " thousands " of listening tests in different room/systems. With out that proccess we just can't made it with that quality levels. But after the Essential 3150 came the Essential 3160 that you own ( so you know exactly what I'm talking about. ) and rigth now ( with out be conceited ) the Essential 3180 that beats the 3160 and almost other unit in the today phonolinepreamp market and a serious challenge for any today market unit. You name it and can be sure that overall can't beats the Essential 3180.
That's why I insiste in your proccess developing with or with out the VIV subject.
R. |
" you cannot add anything, because we know already about its theoretical shortcomings. " That theorethical is a fact and I posted that I was looking for an explanation why the audiophiles like t and that explanation that VIV owners can’t do the necessary " autopsy " as a " forensic " does due that no one of you have that kind of " tree " whole proccess tests. So, no one can’t find out that " why " if does not has that critical test proccess and that’s why you have not explanation about till today.
My advise is that you start to develop that test proccess and then maybe you can have your explanation not before. At the ned there is no plausible explanation due that no one can prove that does not exist that tracking additional distortions. You took the VIV flag and for your posts seems to me that you are even to " die for that flag ", well it's you.
R. |
@lewm : Thank's to share your proccess that's way different from mine, I did my test comparison almost the same way than you due that one time I had 10 tonearms/cartridges operating in my system but those kind of test proccess was so many years ago that I can't remember for sure when I left to dii it.
My " tree " instead " forest " test proccess is a way simple and I don't need any other tool than the ears because when you know exactly what to look for the ears are the best tool under the audio world and way faster than the normal " forest " procces almost all audiophiles use. I remember that first time at A.Porter time I took no more than 10 minutes to note a system fault and another 10 minutes to fixed and A.Porter agree on that " fixed ". In Idaho I was seated " against " MBL speakers, Technics SP-10MK3, Schroeder tonearm, tube amps by the great regarded designer that unfortunatelly pass away and that at this moment can't remember his name and the cartridge was the SS Straing Gauge and the owner had the LP I need it and he did it and my rigth first impression ( first 5 minutes. ) was a truly Impressive but then I ask that gentleman that in that LP I need to listen a specific track and after listened I was totally sure that those HF were wrong: all these in 15 minutes and over the time all SG owners confirmed what I knew before they. After half hour he changed cartridge to listen the Lyra Olympos and thigs changed for the better through the Essential 3160. The system owner was deep founded with the SG and I try don't insist in other way but have some fun just listening MUSIC. Btw, I listening for the first time a Rockport TT an Acapella top speakers with F.Crowder that I named. Lew I did and do not try in anyway to " disparaging " you . I was almost sure and that's why I ask you to share your proccess that that was your proccess. When I said that's not your fault I posted that not to be condescend with you because I know I'm not condescend with no body: this is not the way I'm and sorry for that: I'm straigth/direct no matters what. In my proccess I'm not looking for what sounds good or excellent but the other way around: look for specific " recording errors " in specific LP tracks. With my " trees " I can in no more than 1 hour prove/detect that the VIV is wrong no matter what and with out need to measure nothing. That is not my capacity but the whole test proccess capacities. I'm not conceited in anyway and that's why I posted audiophiles names/places and no my ears are no better than yours but just " truer " thank's to the proccess estrategy.
R.
|
Dear @lewm : I never said you are not a MUSIC lover and if you understand that was only a bad explanation for my part but was not my attitude because I know for sire that as me you are first than all a MUSIC lover. Apologize for that.
Now, every one has a " test proccess " my developed test proccess is not listening to the " forest " because as a whole we just are " lost " very easy, what I’m looking in that " forest " ( example ) is one specific " tree " in one or more of the LP tracks used in the test proccess where I know that " tree " better as the fingers of my hand. I have different trees depending what I want to test/to look for. I’m not looking for what is sounds in any LP very good because this is the " forest " and we can easy lost in there. You can talk with F.Crowder who not only has a top top room/system but from some years now is a professional reviewer, I was at his place twice and from the first time ( with the Essential 3150 ) I ask him for 2-3 LPs and fortunatelly he owned and after that and even the high quality system I gave him an opinion of some anomaly that I listen on that system and that he till that moment did not take in count to fix it. Same happens at A.Porter place ( 3150 too ) where with one of my LP tracks not one but twice detected some anomalies in his top room/system, first listening he and me and the second time with other 6 audiophiles including a Dagogo reviewer and in that session I was the only that detect a deficient SPL in one system channel I can give you a lot more examples with gentlemans of that caliber and in all cases were my first listening session with that room/system that before were unknow for me. Other places that I remember because I meet fabolous gentlemans was in San Diego as Idaho too and Georgi and if they are still Agoners could attest what I’m posting here. Now, detected I those anomalies because I’m a golden ears audiophile? NO far away from there, I detected because I know exactly what to look for I was looking for that tree and not the " forest " at random and that’s all.
My first hand experiences for overall 20 years developing my test proccess ( many times thise LP tracks appeared at random and from there I choosed. ) makes me to learn a lot and makes me to fix that test " tree " strategy because is more easy to look for a tiny/small specific part that look at random in the forest for that unknow tree.
Btw, I posted 4-5 times in the forum that I owned the RS A-1 and perhaps I was one of the first Agoners to do it. I owned around 3 months and sold. More or less that’s what I do. Can I ask which is your test whole proccess or any one of Agoners in this thread ? We all must be always willing to learn from every member even that I know that I don’t like almost no body here and obviously no bo dy in wbf and other forums. Even that what I post is always trying to help in some way even if what the gentlemans read could teeel for them I’m " insulting " them, this is never my attitude but help.
R.
|
@lewm : He has or posted nothing that needs " defend " it. He, as some of us, is spot on the whole issue.
Your latest posts seems to me that posted to justify in some way that you are satisfied with the wrong VIV tonearm but due that you like it you don't need to justify nothing to others but only maybe to you.
Again, the issue to have a self developed test/comparison " bullet proof " whole proccess is critical to detect any errors elsewhere and your proccess showed is not good enough to detect what is obvious and same for the other owners. I know that almost no one cares about that test proccess but it's critical for any gentleman that think is a MUSIC lover an audiophile.
With out that test proved proccess you don't know what to look for, so you can't detect even what's obvious and is not your culprit but that proccess you have.
R. |
Dear @intactaudio and friends: The link you posted shows only that it’s the first time that that distortion was measured. Rigth from the begin of the digital medium/CD almost all started to talk about the CD jitter and almost at the same time some of us started too to speak of anlog tracking jitter and not only that but between other audiophiles I started too to post several times through the years that trtuose cartridge ridding road named " Hymalaya Mountains " where the jitter and the Himalaya we just can’t avoid in any way: it’s main part of the LP/cartridge imperfections. Never was measured but it’s almost useless when not only each LP but each LP track measures different.
Well, those truly high distortions that are part of the " game " never were detected by us are just added colorations that we all like and that we can’t avoid.
The cartridge/tonearm alignments is something different that obviously does not measures those, the alignment only measures the additional tracking distortions as an effect in pivoted non LT tonearms and that’s why exist that overhag and offset angle. NO the alignments were not calculated to help with other issues as the off-centered cartridge stylus/cantilever because that responsability is of the cartridge manufacturers that need to way improve its QC. Around 20 years ago I started to develop a " trusty " comparison whole proccess tests that through those years was up-graded/up-dated several times where I always use the same LP tracks that I know better than the fingers of my hands and I don’t use all the track because depending of what I’m testing msometimes I listen 20 seconds on one track and the like. That proccess permits me to know what to look for and that’s why I can detect that overhang or offset-angle at some pointand some SPL. With out know what to look for detectionof those kind of distortions is to difficult to do it.
Btw, sometimes the alignment tracking distortions are developed at lower SPL that the one need it to detect it.
So all the satisfied VIV owners are " deaft " , ceratinly not and it’s not that their room/system has a poor level resolution. No, my take is that each one of them comparison proccess is not good enough to detect those alignment developed distortions. That’s all.
Btw, @lewm , the gentleman that did the analysis in your link posted there:
" Any arm not being designed according to one of these two approaches, produces higher tracking distortion than necessary and should be disregarded. ""
Overall is an extreme complex issue.
R. |
Dear @intactaudio : You don’t get it my point or I can’t explain it in the rigth wat but your charts goes exactly on what I listening during those yesterday tests: the overhang change/error produce a kind of distortion that’s detected when the alone " error " in the offset angle not only is lower but just can’t detect it in easy way. This is my issue.
In the other side, in this thread I posted that the angular error is only a part of the whole subject because a tonearm is a lot more than tha and I posted about that well damped VIV pivot bearing and its arm wand O rings and the like. Change in overhang alone is truly sensible and audible, we can see that a tiny difference around only 0.4mm between Löfgren A and Löfgren B alignments that tracking distortion goes lower in the B alignment and both A and B alignments have the same offset angle.
Yes, even if we have the best tools to make the cartridge/tonearm set up the perfect set updoes not exist because LP groove after groove surface is not totally flat but full of waves and micro-waves where the stylus tip it’s looking different VTA almost at each groove. I posted several times about as I posted that changes in VTF/VTA/AZ and the like change the original set up, it’s the reality of the imperfection of analog as is the fact that even top cartridges comes with no perfectly centered stylus tip at the cantilever even sometimes comes with not centered cantilever. Btw, here I don’t mentioned that lewm does not listen the high distortions developed by the VIV ( because " not golden ears " ) or that his system has not the resolution to do it but I posted the other way around and don’t diminish him or his system in anyway. I have respect for lewm, I know who he is. Every one of us know about those " nice distortions " but no one but the VIV owners experienced a totally NEW kind of " nice distortions " ( lewm I posted that it’s need it to look at what sort of distortion as you said but with my words ) and almost all know that our ears are not the best " tool " to detect not only that kind of distortion but several others because during LP playback what we are listening and that we like it’s totally full of distortions.
No one here is discovering the " black thread ". Still my question abou the stylus shape is On and with out answer from you .
R.
@lewm : " Until then, your complete conviction that you alone are possessed of the "truth" rings hollow to me. Is your close-minded attitude any better than the behavior of the AHEE that you so revile? " You are who think that because here for what I posted tells you that I’m not a close-mind but the other way around. What you could think is only that what you think but not what is my attitude on the whole subject . I don’t remember that in this thread you mentioned or accepted that are listening added unique kind of distortions by that high tonearm offset angle and : Are you saying I’m close-mind? .
Btw, I was writing my post when you already posted that link that I don't read yet.
|
Dear @drbarney1 : You are totally rigth: " makes the " cure " only worse ".
But even that huge VIV offset angle the issue is that has no " detectable " listen distortions but the other way around:
" Suffice to say that each of the 3 cartridges sounds better in the Viv than it has in either of two other well regarded conventional overhung pivoted tonearms. The characteristic sound is "vivid", as the name suggests........., coherent (I detect absolutely no negative effect of the TAE at outer or inner grooves), and undistorted. I think that individual instruments in large orchestral pieces are more easily appreciated. Sound stage is open and spacious. Sense of depth is as good as I ever heard, if not better..." I already posted that the election of this VIV tonearm is a Personal Choice. I already posted several times through several years: no one can questioning ( negative ) any other gentleman for what he or I like, because that's what I like no matters what.
The pity issue in the overall VIV subject is that ours ears/brain is truly poor to detect the " nice " VIV developed distortions.
R.
|
Dear @intactaudio : Why the stylus shape can affect the alignment?
Linear offset is the same always in both Löfgren A and B alignments if we don’t change the must inner groove and must outer grove distances. If you have a cartridge /tonearm set up for Löfgren A alignment and by a mistake ( as happened to me twice times. ) you are 2mm-3mm forward against the correct overhang sooner or latter and through listening you will " catch " that something is not running well with that overall cartridge set up and it is because you are out of the original calculated linear offset.
I had at least twice times first hand experiences with and at least coincide with the Löfgren statement. What have you on hand and from where say that zenith is more important than overhang: how much more important? could you share your specific first hand experiences on the whole issue? and remember that the VIV way high angular offset has no " audible distortions ". It's what their owners shared everywhere.
Well, something to share with you is that I just finished my listening tests making on purpose a 2mm overhang error and other test changing only ( what more or less permits the headshell ) the angular offset. I think you need to do it.
Still the question about the stylus tip shape stays to you.
R. |
Dear friends: I forgot to post on the protractor manufacturers that speak of Stevenson alignment that ( as with Lögren ) Stevenson alignment does not exist but Stevenson A and Stevenson B and no one of those manufacturers an even tonearm manufactursrs made any explanation about..
@lewm , agree with you but unfortunatelly there no exist that " ideal ".
Next information on alignment is important due that came from Löfgren him self:
" “From the shape and location of the curves, it results that the largest distortion risk occurs when the overhang is not correctly set for the linear offset. On the other hand, the angular offset itself is not so critical”
R. |
Dear friends: Even that lewm posted that it's not the main subject in the thread and yes it's not however I consider that's important for each one audiophile knowledge levels and especially because in this thread we are talking of tonearm/cartridge alignment, what this means and differences against ( mainly ) Löfgren A or B alignments. Several times I posted about " corrupted " AHEE and here in the kind of alignments the " corrupted " word is the precise one because " invent " alignment or false alignment information is a kind of corruption. Examples of professional tonearm/cartridge protractor manufacturers: Dr. Feickert site speaks of Löfgren, Baerwald and Stevenson alignments Wally: speaks of Löfgren and Baerwald. J.Ellison calculator speaks the same.
In both cases they " invented " a new alignment because Löfgren alignment just does not exist. What exist is Löfgren A and Löfgren B Additional they give an " honor " to Baerwald when he was not involved side by side with Löfgren in 1938 developed alignments equations.
I know not no body cares about but I do because in " theory " those " professional " manufacturers at least should have the responsability to share the rigth information to his customers that are all of us However what they are showing or trying we learn is corrupted information even if they do not did it on purpose.
For me both sites need some kind of explanatio for audiophiles can have first hand professional and true information.
Well, that's my take.
R.
Btw, only VE calculator named Löfgren A instead that Baerwald and obviously speaks of Löfgren B.
|
Dear @lewm : Any one can argue about because it's a way incomplete ideal tonearm description that I'm not willing to " take " this time. In the other side what you posted: " the stylus should always ride right down the middle of the groove. " that could not happens not only in LT but pivot LT tonearms due that the tremendous forces generated during stylus tip ridding modulations impedes that groove after groove the tip stays just centered. As a fact the stylus tip is not always in touch with the LP grooved surface. Anyway, I assume that you are not still ready to share your final veredict of what you are experienced. Yes, listening time is important in that issue.
R. |
Dear friends: Maybe some of you already experienced that we did some mistakes when were doing the cartridge alignment with either Löfgren A or B. Well, I did it like 2-3 times with out take in count my alignment errors that were in the overhang: 2-3mm longer or shorter. I remember that even that tracking distortion level goes up that existed not mistracking or any kind of distortion that I could detect and was till the second day listening sessions when I " feel " that something was not exactly as I was accustom too. The error colorations was " good " colorations and remember that at least with one of the times the high frequency reproduction was" better " than before but that " better " was only added distortons.
It’s not easy to detect what we are missing when errors goes up, at least not in one listening session and with out knowing that exist an alignment error.. What I detected at the second day was that the MUSIC rhythm/beat was different and not good enough as with the correct alignment.
Any one of you can do it on purpose as a test and listen what happens in your room/system and what can detect . As we know different kind of distortion levels can like us : sometimes are very " nice distortions " and like us and let that way. Well, I like that my mind stay calm, so I try to avoid higher any kind of added distortion or lost signal information.
R. |
@lewm : Please don’t misunderstood my words. I posted that I’m trying to understand/figure out or look a " rational " explanation to know why you like it, not other gentlemans but you. I’m not trying to diminish your self capacities or your system, I really trust in you and that’s why I’m following posting in the thread At this moment my take is simple: the cartridge does not knows what it’s tracking does not knows ( and does not cares. ) about that angle " error ". What is doing is just tracking the LPs groove modulations and that it’s doing with no audible distortions. Audiophiles like me are questioning that high tracking angle error and yes it’s a high angle error against an Löfgren A/B alignment but here we have a way different kind of alignment that necessary will produce a special/different kind of quality sound levels a sound NEW for you and other VIV owners. So you are listen to a total NEW experience ( I could say new " LPs " ) and I believe you when you said that like you. New LPs because it's your first time to listen those modulations with different angle stylus tip tracking as what you and many of us are accustomed to listen our LPs. That different TAE in the VIV is big ( vs normal alignments. ) but seems not big enough to cause mistracking or audible distortions, the cartridge tracking capacities ( yours and others. ) have no problem to track almost all LP’s groove modulations mounted in the VIV. Yes still untruer to the recording but if we have not audible higher tracking distortions and or you don't detect yet that are " missing " tiny kind of signal recorded information then ( as alwaYS ) IS A PERSONAL CHOICE. Could be a good thing to calculate the VIV tracking distortion levels.
In this alignment subject I'm orthodox/dogmatic due that my main target is to stay truer to the recording, so till today no VIV for me. If I want it to " improve "/change the LPs colorations I'm accustom too then I will follow the @mijostyn example/experience adding a digital processor/Eq. to my system that I'm not yet willing to do it.
R.
|
@lewm : It is totally obvous for any audiophile that that " special "/different sound quality is due to tonearm/cartridge big angle error over the LP groove modulations.
I mentioned that bearing low tonearm friction only because the designer says it's one of his main targets but for me that he said that is not totally trust information but untrusty one when he does not shows the tonearm measured bearing friction and due that he only " talk and talk " permit me to think that maybe he never measured and only a good " desire ". Anyway, the real fact is that you like that special sound ( as you named. ) as many other owners even that the reproduction is " untruer " to the recording in comparison with a normal tonearm.
R. |
Dear @lewm : My toughts about that headshell and damping issues are trying to understand why with that calculated ( wbf ) " huge " angle error you like it. So with the usual headshell and Löfgren A/B real alignment a comparison could tell us or put some " light " why you and other audiophiles like it. With out this kind of comparison we just almost never know for sure. Common sense tells me that with a normal alignment will like you even more and then the overall VIV damping could be what helps a lot for better quality performance. I think that when you have the time can be interesting wich changes in the sound makes with out O rings, here too common sense says will be a quality changes and the one that can tell us is you.
Well, only my thoughts, R. |
@lewm : Do you tested the tonearm with out O rings ? So, for your last post means that there is no way to turn the cartridge in the tonearm headshell. Sometimes and depending of the headshell the cartridge can turn just a little but permits it but not with the VIV.
R. |
Dear @lewm : " main goal was lowest possible friction. Hence the pivot floating on an oil bath. " So,what you are experienced with is that the arm wand is " truly free " to make sudden horizontal/vertical movements with even lower true unipivot friction and with out the unipivot side effects? That is that the tonearm hast the fast controled response ( to any other tonearm you own or experienced.) to what the cartridge modulation rides ask for during playback?
In the other side that oil floating bearing with " no instability " works as whole tonearm damping other than the O rings and that kind of damping by my first hand experiences Audiogon Discussion Forum has the capacity and could " kills " almost any resonance/distortion developed by cartridge/tonearmTT that open sound presentation to a new/different " flavor " of what you are listening That " kills " resonances/distortions could means a clean and pristine sound color. I don't know if the tonearm could permit it but should be interesting to mount the cartridge with Löfgren A/B or nearer to it and listen it. Using damping in the " right "/adequated way can makes " magic " especially in this tonearm/cartridge application. Resonances/distortions are the enemy to beat it and damping is one way in tha direction.
R. R. |
" Likely you cannot either,..." That issue has no priority inside my MUSIC sound reproduction ( I mean that that comparison because TAE is inside the priority due to its direct relationship during cartridge groove modulations rides. ), so sincerely I don’t really care to much about that question but for all what I posted the answer is obvious. Which your answer/opinion to your question. Maybe obvious too: " None of us can have an opinion ..."
" in which case please avoid insulting me. " I did not insult you, I only posted a different main targets that just are different from yours.
R. |
Dear @dogberry : "" The question that should be central to all of this is which is the greater sin: TAE or added anti-skate force? ""
Perhaps for you and other gentlemans that could think like you because for me it’s ( as always ) what is right or wrong and the why’s about. Your question came with out facts/why’s. The main issue/subject for any cartridge/pivoted tonearm/LT is to pick up " all " the recorded audio signal in those LP groove modulations. That means that before any other questions it need it to pick up that signal as nearer is posible and after that comes several set up parameters as : SRA, VTA, AZ, AS, Zenith , ideal resonance FR and the like.
As you I can ask: which is more important AS or VTA or tonearm damping or aluminum vs boron cantilevers or kind of tonearm bearing or tonearm build materials, ? ? ? Analog is not as " easy " as your question, never is. Full of imperfections that when you want to fix one of those imperfections you " touch " almost all other in a bad way. Please use common sense about.
R.
|
@lewm : " the theory would predict that the Viv should sound grossly distorted (your term) "
Not really a theory but imagination of some gentlemans.
R. |
@lewm : Where posted I the VIV should sounds awful? what I posted is:
" When yo said that your other 3 cartridges sounds better in reality is not true BETTER but different because its stylus tip angle is running the grooves in way different angle and a " little " more away of what was recordd "
Where posted I? : ""by insinuating that I am not a qualified listener or that my equipment is not qualified to reveal obvious problems due to excessive TAE. ""
The main issue is this:
" Löfgren’s paper is the earliest work which gives an analytical treatment of tracking distortion and develops a new optimum alignment method to minimise it. "
Cartridge tracking distortion level has a direct interrelationship with the cartridge tracking angle and as near this tracking angle is to tangential as nearer will be the stylus tip to pick up what " really " are recorded in those groove LP modulations.. Other tonearm " aberrations "/colorations/distortions developed by each single different tonearm design is other matters as is its set up. Everything the same Löfgren alignment first than all puts us nearer to the recording other than tangetial designs. What could happens after that is another kind of subjects, because first that all is to pick up those grooves information in the " nearer the rigth " way.
" I have no dog in that fight. " well, you are seen a " fight " where did not exit or existed: NEVER existed because Löfgren: " he was the " inventor/creator " only with no one else. " Can you see a fight there?
R.
|
Dear @lewm , OP and friends: That some audiophiles as lewm like the VIV " sound " is just anecdotal and does not means the VIV design play performance is better that all the other pivoted designs due that the VIV design is a WRONG design is a wisecrack that makes money. Some questions comes to my mind: why are we looking for system room treatment? why we take care to match speaker/amps or cartridges/tonearm match? why this IC cable over the other? why we choose an electrical special source item? and why, why why? At the end what we are doing with is trying to put colorations/distortions at minimum to preserve the cartridge signal integrity We are not doing that to achieve higher colorations/distortions. Maybe some of us do it but not on porpose.
" And so their papers introduced the idea of having the cartridge overhang the spindle and then twisting the headshell with respect to a straight line emanating from the pivot. They did this work during what was still a very primitive era in home audio. Stereo did not exist, and most disc players were still of the wind-up variety. Many still used wholly mechanical Victrolas. " Lew, for years you are posting the same as a some kind of citic for the alignment solutions and over time you never gave any idea to change that very old kind of alignments that gives certainty of the tracking distortion levels and that puts those kind of distortions at minimum for the cartridge pick up in the best way what is recorded in the LP groove modulation. Only LT tonearms can makes a better job on that specific issue. Obviously VIV can’t do it. That you like it is only an anecdotal that has a value only for you and that’s the same for other owners. It’s a similar anecdotal issue as the Dava cartridge that shows around 5db FR deviations but some like it.
In the other side Baerwald that you named was not involved in the original tonearm alignment solutions:
Was Professor Erik Olof Löfgren of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Löfgren’s paper is the earliest work which gives an analytical treatment of tracking distortion and develops a new optimum alignment method to minimise it. Löfgren applied mathematical rigor to the distortion model developed by Olney, and undertook a Fourier analysis on the model.
That was in 1938 and it’s a mistake to name Baerwald along Löfgren because the ONE down there is only LÖfgren, he was the " inventor/creator " only with no one else. Reviewers are wrong too when mention Baerwald instead Löfgren. You spend money as other owners in an audio item that by design is just wrong developing higher distortions, that that higher distortions like you do not say that the design is a top design . The VIV has other kind of not very good design issues that contributes to that " I like it ". When yo said that your other 3 cartridges sounds better in reality is not true BETTER but different because its stylus tip angle is running the grooves in way different angle and a " little " more away of what was recordd- Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @frogman : You are rigth but the owners of that tonearm just posted that they like it and in reality no one gone in deep detail in their tonearms comparisons with selected LP tracks.
I even posted to intactaudio if he could share the LPs tracks that was using in his tests and his answer was:"dead silence ".
Such is life. R. |
Dear @intactaudio : Here are your main posts to me in even you talk about calculation where what I posted were all about LÖfgren A alignment calculations.
It’s really weird that in no other of your posts but only in the last one mentioned about " null points in LP surface existence ". Read carefully your first post to me with that Whaaa. From there came all other posts between you and me:
"
Whaaaa??? you need to specify at least four parameters which typically are alignment type, inner groove diameter, outer groove And Pivot to spindle (P2S). The math then returns you two null points, effective length (EL) and offset angle. The overhang (OH) is then found by subtracting P2S from EL. The knowns and unknowns can be reworked based on the information available. Effective length can be substituted with a known overhang and the P2S returned. dave "
"" Without overhang which requires an effective length to calculate the two null points cannot exist. dave ""
"" I doubt Løfgren would suggest it possible to get two null points without the addition of overhang no matter how much you point him to his math. dave """
What is all about?
Don’t you think that your last post should been the first one?:
"" those null points on a record surface and being able to trace through to them with a cartridge.....to get existence ""
Instead that you followed talking of calculations/math as me.
That’s is my stupidity.
R.
|
Dear friends: No one yet? Here I go to null points calculation according with what I posted .
R1: 60.325mm. R2: 146.05mm IEC Standard.
First the numerator in the formula:
2 x 60.325 x 146.05 = 17,621
Now the denominator that has two elements.
First one : 1 - 1/1.4142 = 0.2929 x 60.325 = 17.669 Second one: 1 + 1/1.4142 = 1.7071 x 146.05 = 249.32 Now the adds of both: 17.669 + 249.32 = 266.99 Solution: 17,621 / 266.99 = 65.998mm
That's the value of the inner null point in the Löfgren A alignment and coincide with the net calculator for both tonearms EL I posted. As any can see it needed only most inner/outer groove radius and nothing else.
R. |
@intactaudio : " for some reason you introduced this particular tangent in response to me simply mentioning in order to get two null points both overhang and offset are required. " Yes the VIV issue is useless for me but I return here because you posted totally wrong about tonearm alignment. All your statements about are totally false and Agon threads are reading for several audiophiles that can’t " learn " from you wat’s ( again ) a FALSE information. In the last 80+ years no one never questioned Löfgren A equations, NO ONE but you. Go figure ! . and from your posts you not even make the calculation using the Löfgren equation I linked, incredible ! ! ! you follow posting about.
Yes, I did it. Btw, any one of you already did it using IEC standard?
Now it’s really enough on the alignment issue where no one needs overhang/off-set angle to determine null points, only needs most inner/outer radius exactly as Löfgreen stated 80+ years agoin the linked formula.
R. |
Dear @intactaudio : want to give you an example of two Löfgren A calculations where even that the EL of the tonearms is different an even that in both the overhag ( obviously ) is different the null points in both tonearms have the same value ( you can check in any net calculator by your self . IEC standard. EL/overhang are two of the parameters you mentioned in your posts:
EL 250mm.: overhang 16.5mm. null points: 66mm and 120.89mm. EL 305mm: overhang 13.37mm same null points.
Obviously that the off-set angle is different too in both tonearms.
R. |
@intactaudio : Your doubt but not Löfgren, Baerwald or Stevenson in their respective A and B alignments.
" and not understanding its relationship to the discussion at hand serves little good. " Obviously speaking by your self understanding.
Btw, Löfgren certainly not " suggest " HE STATED/SPECIFIED it in that formula that comes from HIM.
Can you understand that HIM?
R. |
Dear @intactaudio : There is no :Whaaa?. This time you are way wrong/misunderstood on that specific issue .
" you need to specify at least four parameters which typically are alignment type, inner groove diameter, outer groove And Pivot to spindle (P2S.. "" Wrong, you don’t need the P2S that in the standards alignment calculations is not and input parameter in the equations but on those calculations P2S comes only by the difference between EL substracting the calculated overhang and that’s it. P2S came after overhang calculation. Been math on those original equations are manipulations, that everyone can " handled ", like the one made by the SAT designer chnaging the most inner groove radius and then following Lögfren A alignment that in theory achieves lower overall distortion level.
""" As a background note re the ’Löfgren A’ alignment and the null points. Null points are calculated from the inner and outer groove radii selected for alignment optimisation purposes. They are outputs only. They are not the drivers of the optimisation philosophy or arrangement, but rather the consequences of it. Of course, they may be specified for use in an alignment procedure or for when a particular alignment tool is being used, but their specification automatically pre-determines the values of the inner and outer groove radii. For the ’Löfgren A’ solution, the null radii are dependent only on the selected inner (R1) and outer (R2) groove radii,....""""
I can’t paste the equation so I will try to write it for the inner null point for Barwald/Löfgren A/Stevenson B:
R1 inner and R2 outer groove radius.
2 x R1R2 division/ ( 1-1/ divided by the sqare root of 2)R1 + ( 1+1/divided by the sqare root of 2 )R2
That’s the original equation and you can infere from that for the outer null point.
Any one of us can have our self kind of alignment just changing the most inner groove radius and like SAT running Löfgren A calculations. Löfgren B is an " aproximation " ( this is the word used ) that is a little different form the alignment A. There is a long historty on all those alignments and additions to those but the A alignment does not changed in its formulation of null points.
Effective tonearm length has no influence in the null points position. It’s are the same for a 250mm tonearm than for a 300mm one.
R. |
@intactaudio : " was about the requirement of both overhang and offset to get two null points. Without overhang which requires an effective length to calculate the two null points cannot exist. "
That could be for you but not for Löfgren him self that was who specified that formula, it was not me and certainly not you but LÖFGREN.
As a fact to calculate overhang the most inner/outer values are necessary in the Löfgren A . Effective length is necessary for the overhang calculation but not for null points calculations. Again it’s not me but Löfgren in his A alignment.
R. |
Dear @intactaudio : "" The combo of properly set offset + overhang is the only way to get the 2 null points. ""
Well, the standard alignments we all know including Stevenson B the null points are output parameters calculated from only 2 other knowed parameters that are:
most inner groove radius ( mm. ) and most outer groove radius ( mm. ). and from here came the standards: IEC, DIN or JIS. Null points calculation it not depends of any other parameter, not even tonearm EL. Again, that is for the knowed kind of alignments.
R. |
Dear @rsf507 : I could think that you already know that the recording/playback overall process is full of imperfections and trade-offs.
Could you share which is your target doing that question? or maybe you already have the answer.
R. |
Dear @gibsonian : " All tube system (SET best) and a Viv tonearm and sound like all the intoxicating distortions that "audiophiles" have adopted over the years will be enhanced to new super pleasing levels. Not surprising is it? "
No, not surprising because is what they like the more and that is the whole education all of us received by the corrupted AHEE where we all belongs.
Of course several audiophiles were and are excellent " students " even some of them with post-grade AHEE education and some others like me not really good. I love MUSIC and I learned to respect what that means taking actions against that corrupted education I received by AHEE . Through the time my audio ignorance levels improved thinking that way but " diversity " is part of the human world.
There is rigth now a thread where the OP wants to change its tube phono stage but AHEE post-graded gentlemans insist with that alternative even that he posted 1-2 times that wants to change:
R. |
@intactaudio : For an experienced " ears " gentleman as you that audible/inaudible always be served the best by a true high resolution system specially through its electronics/speakers
I hope you are not using tubes down there that could " vanish " true high resolution I can think that the choosed LP tracks were the ones you know as the fingers of your hand and I have not doubt about but curiosity for the LP choosed tracks because some of them could be a test reference for me and maybe to other audiophiles. Thank's.
R.
|
Dear @intactaudio : "" Maybe the distortion caused by this is inaudible to some people, but it is there and is audible to some of us. "" That statement comes by @mijostyn and I agree with. Audible/inaudible depends basically on room/system accuracy levels and resolution levels not only your " ears ". Could you detail your room/system and the LP tracks you are using for your listening tests? Thank's in advance. R.
|
Dear @mijostyn : " . Since it is impossible to standardize our hearing and the systems we listen to we are all thrown into a washing machine of varied opinions much of them based more on individual bias than real substance. " You are rigth and the " problem " is that to each one of us like different kind and level of developed room/system distortions. The owners of tonearms as the VV one just like the developed distortions that are the " holly grail " for its ears/brain. Are these gentlemans wrong? certainly not because it’s what they like. I already posted several times in different threads that no one can be questioning any single full subjective opinion, is untouchable even if for some of us could be wrong that opinion.. That’s the real problem with subjectivity but such is the audio world. Btw, each one of us has " different " level of common sense due that our first hand experiences and ignorance levels/knowledge levels are different too as is each one of us: true " open mind " or true " closed mind ".
" properly designed they both sound exactly the same, like nothing. If an armwand has a sound it is defective. "
In theory I agree because not only the tonearm arm wand has to has no " sound " at all but all tonearm but it’s almost imposible to achieve in audio real world playback tests. In some ways " colorations " ( by many reasons ) are developed in diffrent ways and those colorations are what we listen.
R.
|
Dear @atmasphere : Analog/audio is full of anomalies and the @mijostyn pointed out: " The point is to minimize it. " even what I " preach " in the forums almost always: put at minimum any kind of " distortions ". But subjectivity makes that some audiophiles instead to put at minimumm those " anomalies/distortions " just added more, VIV confirm it.
Anyway, for me the VIV/underhung issue is exhausted and at least for me useless to follow. To each his own. R. |
@intactaudio : " on a solid foundation " but your observations on the VIV owners has not that " solid foundation ".
Observation must be under control with very specifics targets to look for. First observation on the VIV is the manufacturer site that's a " bs " for say the least.
R. |
